Chats about Democracy, or Television Hunt for Secretary of State

Jacques Ellul once said about the modern world the everybody is talking and nobody is listening to anybody in it. These words might as well be an epigraph to the talk show “Dialogues about Democracy” (April 14, channel 1+1) which hosted US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and some Ukrainian enthusiasts of reflecting on things eternal, in this case, on democracy.

First, the Secretary of State arrived at the studio a few minutes earlier than planned. To give credit to Hanna Bezulyk and Danylo Yanevsky, they tried to somehow fill this gap with “routine questions” (serious ones) like, “How do you like Kyiv and Ukraine?” When Ms. Albright shared her impressions of Ukraine and its capital, it became clear, quite unexpectedly, that the hosts had no more questions. Danylo Yanevsky asked the audience if they had any questions for the guest because they had run out, but the observers followed the hosts’ suit and preferred to keep silent in the studio background. Fortunately, the program was still off the air. Do you understand the tragedy of the situation? Ms. Albright was somewhat at a loss because she had thought the young Ukrainian audience in the studio were just yearning for “democratic enlightenment” and communication with her.

While Bezulyk and Yanevsky observed an uneasy silence, Madam Secretary of State, a bit perplexed, went through papers and looked around the studio, while the audience was looking, with interest, at the overseas guest. I think the only unembarrassed person in this situation was a certain “tabooed” gentlemen named Mykola Veresen (popular “Taboo” talk show host — Ed. ) who has a special viewpoint on all problems (including the US secretary of state). He, like all his colleagues, was doggedly silent. When Yanevsky asked if Veresen, breaker of all imaginable taboos, wanted to ask Ms. Albright something, he said, as if in jest, that he was going to have sort of a lunch and, besides, nobody will pay him for these five minutes off the air. It is difficult to judge if the joke was clean (we can only hope it was not translated to Ms. Albright), but it did not defuse the tension. In a word, no rapport was established in the studio at the very beginning: say whatever you want to.

I must say it had been planned to talk about democracy. But the participants failed, for some reason, to touch directly on the state of democracy in Ukraine and the US attitude toward democratization in Ukraine within the context of the relationship between the two countries. No doubt, all subjects touched upon in the program were important, pressing, special, tabooed, etc. Moreover, they can be linked with democracy, to stretch the point a little. For example, why not go deep into the gender problem in the US, dredge up the topic of what would have happened if Ukraine had not decommissioned its nuclear arms, on the obligations of G7 to Ukraine in assisting the Chornobyl power plant shutdown, and the US pressure on Ukraine to abandon the B Я shehr project in Iran. Moreover, I am even ready to admit that Veresen’s trademark question, “When is Mr. Clinton coming to Ukraine? I am asking this because Kyiv had been given a facelift by the time you came, so I just wonder when the city will be cleared of garbage?” could be put top of the charts with a bullet of not the only janitors. But still, it was also interesting to know something else: how the US leadership assesses democracy in Ukraine (after all, this was roughly the topic proposed for discussion). In particular, I would like to hear whether the American leadership intends to alter its support for Ukraine as a country of democracy at risk in connection with: a) the coming to power in some post-Soviet countries of authoritarian regimes (like some countries of Central Asia, the Transcaucasus, and much belabored Belarus), in spite of the US having declared support for democratic processes there; b) ineffectual utilization by Ukraine of Western economic and financial aid; c) the ongoing process of systemic degradation in Ukraine, in spite of this country being the world’s third largest recipient of US aid; and d) constant lending of funds for declared intentions rather than for specific undertakings.

In this connection, I would also like to know Ms. Albright’s attitude toward the opinion that the existing practice of supporting “state- instilled democracy” has already exhausted itself, and now one should support civil society, rather than the institutions wielding power (this point of view is shared by a considerable portion of the US business and political elite, and has been clearly spelled out by George Soros). In addition, some Western financiers and politicians have been saying of late that loans for their geopolitical position only corrupt the Ukrainian leadership, and this practice should be done away with. And what does Ms. Albright think of all this?

Nothing came out clear. Conversely, if you forget a little the current situation, you can well imagine that this debate is occurring somewhere in the late eighties, and the representative of a democratic nation is trying to bring home to the “common Soviet people” that democracy was this, that, and the other — on the whole not bad. Meanwhile, we have almost a decade of experience, be it good or bad, of “democracy,” resulting in Ukraine having built “democracy with a Ukrainian face.” So it was far more interesting to hear concrete appraisals of the current condition of Ukrainian democracy rather than the lengthy deliberations of passers-by on the theory of democracy, which 1+1 showed that evening in two clips.

Judging by Ms. Albright’s previous appearances, the level of the 1+1 talk show was clearly beneath her. This makes it possible once more to ask the question: what is the problem of our television, that it only lacks complete freedom to say and do what it likes? For this was a live show, but, except for three or four questions (one of them by Hanna Bezulyk about US support for the Yushchenko reform government, and a question from the audience about the place of Ukraine in US plans after the coming of Vladimir Putin to power in Russia), it failed to become an interesting, deep, and penetrating program. Perhaps the main problem of our boob tube is in knowing WHAT and HOW to say and show something than in forbidden or when it can be done.

As to the HOW problem, we again get down to the problem of the professionalism of Ukrainian televised journalism. Suffice it for our homespun stars to go outside the circle of their local admirers, and all their stardust immediately vanishes, and what comes to the fore is their lack of real professionalism. This also happened during live television bridges with Russia and Poland last year, the same occurred very recently on “Epicenter” with Mr. Karaganov, and so on. In all probability, professionalism begins with the ability to establish contact with the guest in the studio and, if necessary, even keep up small talk with him/her, instead of keeping a protracted silence. Professionalism culminates in the quality of the prepared material (including televised spots) and the ability to keep up the subject and level of a program. Another open question is to what extent the “Taboo” style wisecracks Veresen made at the beginning of the show complied with the spirit and level of a meeting with the US Secretary of State. At some points I wished there had been Vyacheslav Pikhovshek who would have surely tried to corner his new victim (although it is not so easy to imagine iron lady Albright cornered). But, in principle, only God knows what is better: to be uninhibited and unable to keep the program in the desired direction or to try to corner someone. In my opinion, these are all different facets of our national televised hunting.

Honestly, I left the studio with a rather complex and unpleasant feeling. Not only because I personally managed to ask none of the above-mentioned questions but mainly because nobody else asked these or similar questions. But there was a chat. You can even say, about democracy. Coming back to Ellul, let me expand on his idea. What irritated and saddened him in the current societal situation was the exchange of communication surrogates and trade in duplicates of one’s own masks. He meant in this case the semantically full-fledged structures, and not their current replacements now called junk or Spam. So another helping of electronic junk food can be hardly conducive to putting one in a good mood. However, some students at the show looked pleased after it ended, not with the way the program went but with the opportunity to sip top quality free coffee. Some of them said they were going to visit Mr. Veresen’s next “Taboo,” of which they talked long and interestingly. So the “Democracy Junk Food” program has taken place, on which I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart. And, as a not exactly obscure television personality says, “And so on and so on...”